ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף שמואל א 2:16

מכרה כיום, “sell me as of this day!” Rashi understands the word כיום as describing the transaction about to take place to be as clear and beyond misunderstanding as daylight, which illuminates everything clearly. The plain meaning of the word is: “immediately,” as, for instance in Samuel I 2,16 קטר יקטירון כיום את החלה, “let me first burn the fat presently, etc.” Onkelos, taking into account that the sale under discussion will become effective only after Yitzchok’s death, understands the word כיום to mean “as and when, with retroactive closing date as of today.” Some commentators understand Yaakov as saying that the sale, trade, will be effective only today when you are close to death. It is appropriate that you receive some of this dish now for once you have died the entire inheritance of our father will automatically come to me. Esau admitted that Yaakov was right and proceeded to gulp down the red dish. The major problem with the whole transaction is that a birthright has never been understood as something that can be acquired or disposed of by selling and buying. What kind of procedure represents the transfer of the object being sold to the buyer, i.e. what מעשה קנין is there possible? If the object of the sale was the double share of the father’s inheritance decreed by the Torah for the firstborn, we have learned that if someone says “I sell you what I will inherit from my father,” that such a declaration is legally quite meaningless. (Baba Metzia 16) Some resolve this problem by saying that seeing Yaakov should by rights have been the firstborn as he was formed out of Yitzchok’s first drop of semen, and that Esau was born first only because he pushed himself ahead at the time of the delivery, he did not even need to make a קנין, act of acquisition, for something which rightfully was his in the first place. We do not think that this argument is tenable, as the Torah specifically calls the “first born” the one that emerges first from the mother’s womb. (Exodus 13,2) Others hold that Yaakov was convinced that his father was going to deed him all his belongings during his lifetime, just as Avraham had deeded all his belongings to Yitzchok during his lifetime. He would do so in order to forestall any legal protest by Esau when the time came. Still other Rabbis claim that the word בכורתך did not refer to inherited wealth at all, but to the dignity, the standing among his peers that the senior brother usually commands. Yaakov wanted to trade the dish of lentils he was about to give to Esau for that intangible symbol of dignity. Still other sages say that all Yaakov was about to buy from Esau was anything that he might inherit from his father on this very day, (if his father were to die on that day). If so, such a sale would be legally valid. Yaakov used the words מכרה כיום to clarify that legal point. When hearing this, Esau said: ”what good is the birthright to me that you want to buy from me only what might accrue to me this day, seeing that I am not going to outlive my father anyway, you might as will buy my future share in any birthright also.” This is why the Torah testifies in a line later on that Esau displayed his disdain for the birthright. (verse 34) In any event, seeing that the part of the transaction described by Yaakov with the words מכרה כיום was legally valid, any codicil, such as proposed by Esau, would be valid also. Esau seized upon that point later on when he accused Yaakov of ויעקבני זה פעמים (27,36) referring to the fact that Yaakov had tricked him into this codicil, something that would not have had legal standing but for his having first agreed to the sale of limited duration, i.e. מכרה כיום. My late father, the רא'ש of blessed memory, seized on this detail to rule that when someone sells something to one’s neighbour which is not subject to regular methods of acquisition, such as “what I am going to inherit from my father,” or “a loan which I have outstanding for repayment with X and secured only by an oral promise to repay,” both objects not subject to sale in the accepted sense of the word, and the seller adds an oath to his verbal sale, such a sale has become valid, and the court can enforce the terms of the sale from the seller due to the seller having obligated himself by oath. This is all derived from the pains Yaakov took to legalise the sale for the day on which it was concluded by adding the words “swear it to me,“ to Esau.

SELL ME THIS DAY (‘KAYOM’) THY BIRTHRIGHT. “I.e., as this day.⁴⁰“As this day.” Our text of Rashi reads: “Ketargumo (Explain it as the Targum rendered it), ‘as this day.’” Rashi now proceeds to interpret the Targum to mean, “just as this day is certain, etc.” Just as this day is certain, so make me a binding sale.” This is Rashi’s language.
The literal meaning of the word kayom is “at this time,” just as: But stand thou still at this time (‘kayom’), that I may cause thee to hear the word of G-d;⁴¹I Samuel 9:27. At this time (‘kayom’) you shall find him;⁴²Ibid., Verse 13. Let the fat be made to smoke at this time (‘kayom’);⁴³Ibid., 2:16. But unto us belongeth confusion of face, as at this day (‘kayom’).⁴⁴Daniel 9:7.
It would appear from the opinion of Onkelos⁴⁵Since Onkelos, the author of the Targum, added the word dilhein, it would appear from this, etc. that because the sale of the birthright was to take effect after the death of his father Isaac, he [Jacob] said, “Sell me the birthright, with the sale to take effect on whatever day [our father’s death] may occur.”⁴⁶Ramban’s intent is as follows: Since Esau would not possess the birthright until after Isaac’s death —(see Ramban further, Verse 34, that the birthright carried with it no distinction except after the passing of the father)— if he were to attempt to sell it effective immediately, the sale would not be valid. But in this way, having stipulated “whenever that may be,” even though the death of Isaac and the subsequent acquisition of the birthright by Esau have not yet occurred, the sale by Esau is nevertheless valid since Jacob stipulated “whenever that may be.” See my Hebrew commentary, p. 145. This is a typical usage of lahein in the Aramaic language: “Wherever (lahein) are you going?”⁴⁷Yerushalmi Berachoth II, 8: lahein yeizil lei. This means, “To what place are you going?” This is derived from the expression, “Whatever (hein) you let me know.”⁴⁸Yalkut Shimoni Ezra 10:3. Similarly in Bereshith Rabbah, Parshath Vayishlach,⁴⁹Bereshith Rabbah 78:1. “Wherever (velahein) are they going?”⁵⁰Our Bereshith Rabbah reads: ule’an atun azlin. See, however, Theodore’s edition of this Midrash, p. 906, where he quotes from manuscript, velahein, as Ramban has it. is derived from the expression, “Whatever (hein) is broken.”⁴⁹Bereshith Rabbah 78:1. This is their⁵¹Those conversing or writing in the Aramaic language. customary usage of language in many places. And in the book of Daniel this form appears with a patach⁵²That is our kametz. under the letter lamed, similar in meaning to the word ilahin (which): Which ‘lohin’ the angels whose dwelling is not with flesh;⁵³Daniel 2:11. whatever⁵⁴“Whatever, you do, O king….” (‘lohin’), O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.⁵⁵Ibid., 4:24. Now Onkelos translated the Hebrew word zulathi as ilahin⁵⁶Deuteronomy 1:36. Zulathi Caleb (excepting Caleb) is translated by Onkelos as elahin Caleb. To the Aramaic root lahin which appears in the book of Daniel — (see my Hebrew text, p. 145 line 2 from bottom, covering Notes 53 and 55 here) — Onkelos added the letters aleph and yod, thus making it elahin. The intent of Ramban is to indicate that it should not surprise us that Onkelos added a dalet in the text before us, thus making it dilhein, for just as the original word hen was augmented to become lahein so he further expanded it to read dilhein. (Aboab.) its meaning being as the two words, ila hin.
Now in carefully edited texts of Onkelos I found the reading, kayom dilhei. This conforms with my interpretation, for hei in their language⁵⁷Aramaic. means “which,” as it is said in the Talmud: “Which (hei) Rabbi Meir?”⁵⁸Baba Kamma 99b. “Which (hei) Rabbi Yehudah?”⁵⁹Baba Bathra 141a. and others.
It is possible that Onkelos understood the word kayom (as the day) as if it were bayom (on the day). The verse would then be stating, “Sell the birthright to me on the day it will come into your possession.” We find such usage of the letter kaf elsewhere: As (‘Ka’asher’) they go, I will spread My net upon them,⁶⁰Hosea 7:12. meaning ba’asher (wherever they go) rather than “whenever they go.” Similarly, And for the blood (‘kidmei’) of thy children that thou didst give unto them;⁶¹Ezekiel 16:36. Ve’kidmei is to be interpreted as ubidmei (and in the blood). For I have spread you abroad as the four (‘ke’arba’) winds of the heavens.⁶²Zechariah 2:10. Ke’arba is here to be interpreted as be’arba (in the four).
And some scholars say⁶³Quoted by R’dak in his commentary in the name of his father. It is mentioned in Pesikta Zutrata, and a reference to it is also found in Bamidbar Rabbah 6:2. that the price for the birthright was not the pottage at all. Rather, Scripture tells that when Esau, being faint, desired to eat, Jacob said to him, “Sell me your birthright for money and then eat,” and Esau, in his haste for food, answered him, “What is this birthright to me? It is sold to you.” He then swore to him upon it, and they sat down to eat and drink. Scripture however did not reveal the price. I do not agree with this interpretation.